Joe Oliver presented the delayed Government's budget yesterday and touted it as "balanced". All the fuss was done to lead off the Government's campaign into the upcoming October Federal Election by assuring voters of the incumbent's prowess as responsible managers.

Journalists coming out of the lockup were quick to make the point that the "balance" ie: slightly more revenue than expenditure, is a product of selling assets, reducing federal expenditures and delaying "promises" into the future.

To assuage our fears, the government will spend $7.5 million (The Tyee) of our tax-payer money beginning next month to encourage us to continue voting for the present management.

One problem that is never discussed in the mass media is the lack of understanding about how a modern national economy like Canada, which has the authority to issue and enforce the use of its own currency, actually works.

There are 3 sectors to the national economy in terms of income and expense:

Public (Fed Gov't)

Private Sector

Foreign Trade

And the simple balance sheet equation is that the net sum of the 3 sectors have to balance to zero, ie:

Net Public Sector+Net Private Sector+Net Foreign Trade Sector = 0

The result of this accounting reality is that:

If society wants more private sector savings, then either the Federal government must run a bigger deficit or exports must increase.

When the government runs a surplus, then the private sector must run a deficit unless exports are booming and make up the difference.

Most people on the political right or left are programmed by their ideological beliefs and have never been presented with the above accounting reality.

Yesterday's heralding of the budget does nothing but further limit the Private Sector.

Because the current federal government has been methodically cutting its own spending since taking over in 2006, today, Canadians have fewer choices to maintain their lifestyle. They either have to continue to drain their savings or take on more debt, or find new earning sources (the search for yield).

Since the Pit of Gloom in 2009, the Feds have been on an ideological mission to "balance" the federal budget by ignoring the Negative Trade Balance and by adding to the Negative Private Sector Balance.

The following is an abstract of some of Cullen Roche's observations about how a modern national economy works with links to further reading. I originally posted this in June of 2012.

CLICK CHART TO ENLARGE

Why is the chart above a big idea?

Because it helps to to objectively describe the operational realities of economies that operate on a fiat monetary system. A modern fiat monetary system is one where the nation is an autonomous issuer of their own non convertible currency which exists within a freely floating exchange rate system (the U.S is the example here, but Canada and Japan are appropriate examples as well). It also proves that:

(S-I) + (T-G) + (M-X) = 0

In other words the Private Sector balance (Savings less Investment) plus the Public Sector Balance (Taxes less Government Spending) plus the Foreign Sector Balance (Imports less Exports) always results in a balance sheet bottom line of zero! It can be no other way; it's an accounting fact.

This rearranges to: (S–I) = (G–T) + (X–M)

ie: The private sector balance is equal to the addition of the government and trade balances; or "... that private sector saving is the source of net finance for the government deficit and the international capital account deficit."Source Material (monetaryrealism.com)

If society wants more private sector savings, then either the Federal government must run a bigger deficit or exports must increase.

When the government runs a surplus, then the private sector must run a deficit unless exports are booming and make up the difference.

Investment is funded by three sources of saving: private sector saving, government saving, and foreign saving. Among other things, given the presence of government and foreign sector saving contributions, the term S must cover the saving contributed by the remaining sector, which is the private sector.

In particularly, S does NOT stand for household saving alone.

Household and business sectors are consolidated into a single private sector that includes both household and business saving.

The equation itself has no inherent model or ideological content.

An explanation (Nov 19/12) from Cullen Roche:

"Saving is a flow. I think it’s sometimes easier to understand our thinking on S=I+(S-I) as a stock of assets and liabilities. For instance, in the USA, the total net worth of the private sector is $63T. Of this, about $15T is government net financial assets. The rest is private sector assets like common stocks, real estate, etc. The flows of spending in the economy help the private sector to generate these stocks (govt deficit spending results in a stock of net financial assets). But the private sector is not built on a stock of government net financial assets. It is built on a stock of private sector assets.

The primary purpose of S=I+(S-I) is about understanding that the private sector generates most of its net worth via the"I" component. That is, it is via investment that we build the majority of our financial assets. MMT ('Modern Monetary Theory' as opposed to MR 'Monetary Realism' which is the view presented here) argues that the economy is built around the government stock of financial assets through govt spending.

Like all things in MMT, the argument is government centric. This is a misrepresentation of the way our balance sheets are built. They are not built around govt NFA (net Financial Assets), but around private sector financial assets that derive from Investment.

So, when MMT defines net saving as S-I they are essentially marginalizing the most important part of the entire Saving equation by subtracting I from S. This is not an accurate portrayal of the way our monetary system exists. The economy is built on a base of primarily private sector assets that develop via Investment. Hence, the clarification of S=I+(S-I)."

This operational reality is widely unrecognized or worse unvoiced among academic, political, business, media and commentators at all levels of discourse.

One of the main educational proponents describing how this modern monetary system works and what social benefits can flow from this knowledge is Cullen Roche who says:

"One of the great problems with the economics profession is that there is no firm foundation of understanding from which analysts can build their policy prescriptions. Further, one tends to find schools of thought based on normative rather than positive thinking; prescriptive rather than descriptive.

The MR (Monetary Reality) approach is similar to that utilized by Leonardo Da Vinci regarding medicine and human anatomy. Da Vinci viewed the human body as a machine and as one of the first anatomists provided the world with a better understanding of how that machine functioned (e.g. how its pieces worked together, how it was built, how it changed, etc). To Da Vinci, it was all about finding out what IS, not what CAN be. It was only through rigorous analysis of how the machine worked that he and others were able to be in a position to offer advice on medicine and surgery.

The “dismal science” need not be so unscientific. Unfortunately, most of its practitioners are trying to be Hippocrates and not Da Vinci. And like the surgeons of the days of Hippocrates, they do not know how the system works and while they might believe they will “do no harm” too many are too often working from a false premise or a false understanding of the system due to a preconceived ideology. It is my hope, through MMR and a true focus on understanding how the system actually works, that we can provide as close as possible to a purely positive approach to economics. I know this is a bold task, but through focusing on the understanding of the monetary system we can then provide others with a foundation from which our problems can be solved."

"The bottom line is that the signature achievement of the Clinton years (the surplus) turns out to have been a deep negative. For this drag on GDP was being counterbalanced by low household savings, high household debt, and the real revving up of the Fannie and Freddie debt boom (Mortgage Backed Securities) that had a major hand in fueling the boom that ultimately led to the downfall of the economy."

CLICK CHART TO ENLARGE

Japan's Financial Sector Balances

After reading the "Why is the chart above a big idea?"

...and now that you grok:

(S–I) = (G–T) + (X–M)

Then you realize that a Federal Government Budget Surplus will suck the economy out of the Private Sector and send it into recession as the Private Sector is forced to spend its savings or take on more debt.

The Japanese 5 year Surplus (1988-1992) forced their Private Sector to go into a negative balance sheet position and a very long subsequent period of asset deflation as their savings were spent and their assets were sold off.

CLICK CHART TO ENLARGE

CLICK CHART TO ENLARGE

Above is another view of Japan's Financial Sector Balances with the "Private" Sectoral Balance broken into its two components of Corporate and Household Net Savings.

Japan like the U.S. and Canada, also has a modern fiat monetary system where the nation is an autonomous issuer of their own non convertible currency.

As can be seen by the charts, they are not solvency constrained. They can always pay their bills, as can the USA and Canada unless of course politicians vote to declare bankruptcy.

Read Rebecca Wilder's explanation (January 22nd, 2012) of the Japanese experience. "As with all credit cycles, the burden of debt falls on the government as the private sector recoups.

However, in Japan’s case the government missed a great opportunity for structural reform before the crash associated with credit cycles in other major developed economies (the USA)."

The following is from PragCap.com edited by Cullen Roche, December 18, 2012 taken from research by Tanweer Akram of ING discussing the economics of Japan over the course of their continuing balance sheet recession.
“The Bank of Japan’s balance sheet had been bloated even before the 2008 global recession forced central banks the world over to expand theirs. However, despite years of an expanding monetary base — and contrary to monetarist mantras — Japan remains mired in deflation (see Chart Figure 29 above). Japan’s experience since the turn of the century validates the contemporary understanding of monetary policy and central banking, which holds that the expansion of central bank’s balance sheet does not necessarily lead to higher inflation. Increases in reserves are merely outcomes of the expansion of the central bank’s balance sheet; they do not directly affect bank lending or credit growth, and inflationary pressures may not arise unless credit growth fuels economic activity. This is particularly true when an economy is characterized by excess slack and spare capacity, as Japan’s is.”

“Understanding sector balances in Japan can provide useful insights about the evolution of the Japanese economy. Japan’s domestic sector balance had been weakening in the late 1980s, preceding the bursting of its real estate and equity asset bubbles. Japan has been fairly consistently running current account surpluses over the past three decades, contributing to the surplus of its domestic private balance. However, its general government deficits declined from 1988 to 1991, going from nearly 5% of nominal GDP to a surplus. The decline in the government deficit resulted in the weakening of the surplus in the country’s domestic private balance. In response to slower growth and fiscal stimulus, the surplus in domestic private balances rose in the mid-1990s as the government deficit rose, helping to partly — but slowly — repair the balance sheets of the private sector. Since the mid-1990s, current account balances stayed in the range of around 1.5% to 5.0% of nominal GDP while general government deficits have varied from 2.0% to 10.0% of nominal GDP. Clearly the change in general government deficits has been the main driver in the variation of domestic private balances. As the domestic private sector deleveraged and spurned debt to repair their balance sheets after the bursting of asset bubbles, the government had to run deficits in order to prevent the economy from failing into a tailspin.

Japan’s current account surplus could decline in the coming years, particularly as the country’s export growth slows due to stiff competition from various Asian countries and the strength of the Japanese yen, and as Japan’s energy import bill rises going forward. Remarkably, the Japanese yen had appreciated through the lost decades, thereby limiting the international competitiveness of Japanese exports, while creating deflationary pressures domestically. If in the coming years Japan’s current account surplus diminishes, its government deficits must get larger to retain the domestic private sector’s surplus at its current ratio.”

Gross current expenditure on goods and services (63% of Total Expenditures, up 0.9% since 4Q 2011) and

Current transfers to households (23% of Total Expenditures, up 0.7% since 4Q 2011)

All other Federal Government Expenditures (14% of Total Expenditures since 4Q 2011) have dropped 1.5%

Government spending on itself and the household sector combined with ultra low borrowing rates have not yielded growth in Canadian Labour Force Participation.

CLICK CHART TO ENLARGE

The Federal Government may announce a "balanced budget" going into the next election call but unless Canadian employees can reverse their debt to income ratio trend by either lowering debt or raising income, householders along with the Federal Managers will not be participating in productive economic spending in any big way.

Jerry Maguire - Show me the Money

Canada's Minister of Finance suddenly resigned earlier this week. The government's major fiscal policy plank is to "balance the budget" next year in 2015 and according to their press briefs and ex-Minister in charge Mr. Flaherty, that goal will be reached for sure; no need to stick around. All is well, carry on.

I don't have a Canadian chart equivalent but the chart mashup shows the U.S. sectoral balances to demonstrate that a country with a modern monetary system and who is an autonomous issuer of its own non convertible currency can always pay its federal government bills and when necessary can go into a deficit at the federal level to do so. The bottom panel shows the U.S. sectoral balances going back to post WWII and for most of the time the feds ran a deficit.

The ability to deficit finance is a feature that does not extend to provincial or municipal (state & local) governments nor does it extend to the corporate and household private sector; everyone except the federal government has to operate on surpluses otherwise they run out of credit (Greece, Detroit, BlackBerry etal).

What does the sectoral balance chart show? The Private Sector balance (Savings less Investment) plus the Public Sector Balance (Taxes less Government Spending) plus the Foreign Sector Balance (Imports less Exports) always results in a balance sheet bottom line of zero! It can be no other way; it's an accounting fact. it's the way we keep score.

ie: The private sector balance is equal to the addition of the government and trade balances; or "... private sector saving is the source of net finance for the government deficit and the international capital account deficit." Source Material: monetaryrealism.com

If society wants more private sector saving (which is the source of investment capital), then either the Federal government must run a bigger deficit or exports must increase.

When the government runs a surplus, then the private sector must run a deficit unless exports are booming and make up the difference.

Well guess what folks... Canadian exports are not booming, there is a global slowdown in demand for commodities, finished products and services and a falling CA$ which is good for exporters has not yet materially changed the current account balance which remains in a deep funk since the Pit of Gloom in March 2009. The CA$ dropping is however affecting the private sector balance with increased costs on import prices and a rising cost of living for our consumer dominant society.

CLICK CHART TO ENLARGE

I suspect that Mr Flaherty and Canadian Finance Ministry staff have seen a sectoral balance chart before and they know that their federal government surplus goal IS GOING TO DEPRESS THE PRIVATE SECTOR EVEN FURTHER because the math tells us that a shrinking federal government deficit in the absence of a positive current account increases the private sector deficit and forces the private sector to either sell off assets (labour, equipment, and fixed assets like real estate) or go deeper into hock to maintain spending (lifestyle).

But the government also knows that their ideological policy of "balancing" the federal budget always sounds good in question period and in media sound bites because every tax payer has a visceral reaction to the notion of having to balance 'the budget" and this fear of "going broke" is a prelude to staging the coming federal election where we will hear that the federal "surplus" will be "spent" funding the most deserving lobbies and loyalists and that will energize the job creators.

Look at the chart again and notice the U.S. federal government surplus during the Clinton years of the late 1990's and the subsequent March 2009 crash and reversal back to federal deficit financing. The federal surplus led directly to the private sector deficit which caused weak hands to liquidate, repair balance sheets and build up savings again.

So Long Mr. Flaherty, nice timing on your exit. The new guy Joe Oliver cut his teeth with Merrill Lynch investment banking and probably also understands sectoral balances but finance ministers are hired on ideology not merit.

Jim Flaherty (1949-2014) died April 10, 2014 soon after his resignation.

Canadian Consumer Debt Zoomed 9% Y/Y in 2013 according to Equifax as reported by CBC News today in advance of Minister of Finance Mr Flaherty's Budget, scheduled to be tabled tomorrow. If the government budget again includes their mantra "We are going to Balance The Budget in 2015" (Oct 2015 is when the next federal election is), then a 9% annual growth in private sector consumer debt is going to increase even more unless lenders freak and turn off the tap, or consumers withdraw into balance sheet repair. Don't worry about non-conventional mortgages (mortgages of more than 80% Loan to Value); they are all insured mostly by you dear tax payer. Mortgage debt clocks in at almost two thirds of Canadian Consumer Debt and that increased 12% over the last year.

As can been seen by the charts below, Government Debt to GDP is curving down and that is not occurring because we are a successful export country. Nope... we are an import country as reflected in our Trade Balance which has been locked into a 5 year negative channel since the March 2009 Pit of Gloom. Government Spending Growth has been reduced (via Balance the Budget Policy) and the hit to the CA$ in the last year has driven up the cost of imports and most of the stuff we buy. In order to maintain its lifestyle, the Private Sector is using credit in the absence of Government Sector spending and a chronic Trade Balance deficit.

According to the Postmedia News reading of the just released Canadian Budget; Flaherty, Harper & friends "... plan to leverage billions in spending on military equipment into making Canada an arms exporter."

The chart to the left suggests there is plenty of room for Canada to move up in rank.

CLICK TO ENLARGE CHART

The Star reports that the new Canadian budget passes along their survey of forecasters who have a very bullish call for a big spike in growth next year.

Unemployed? Underemployed?

Get thee down to the retraining center for a placement in the bullet and bomb department.

CLICK CHART TO ENLARGE

I wonder who the Economic Growth Forecasters are. They do not appear to be business people at ground level.

As the chart left demonstrates, the PMI (Purchasing Managers Index) which reflects Business Owner Confidence, has been in a downtrend since the peaks in 2010-2011.

But only two weeks ago to the question: “How much of a kick are we going to take on the revenue side because of lower nominal GDP?"

The Huffington Post Canada notes that the Tom Jenkins OpenText Corp report (commissioned by the Canadian Public Works Department) said that the production and trade of military goods is "powerfully influenced by governments" that can encourage the development of a country's defence industry.

The Canadian government will move this spring on Jenkins' recommendations and will begin an analysis that will look at "selecting a series of interim key industrial capabilities to help guide immediately pending defence procurement projects."

"But the budget affirms the core message the Jenkins report delivered: that the government must ensure future purchases of military equipment be used to "create economic opportunities for Canadians by developing key domestic industrial capabilities" on future procurement."

"A key opportunity for doing so is by targeting, as estimated by Mr. Jenkins, the $49 billion in Industrial and Regional Benefits obligations that foreign prime contractors are expected to accumulate by 2027 to support high-skill and high-value opportunities and jobs in Canadian industries."

"The budget document said the overall strategy would "provide Canada with a stronger manufacturing base with a capacity for leading-edge technology and innovation. The potential benefits for the Canadian economy are significant."

OpenText Corporation is a software company headquartered in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. As Canada's largest software company, it produces and distributes computer software applications designed to enable enterprise content management solutions for large corporations across all industries.

OLD NEWS DEPT:

The Times Colonist in Victoria tipped us off back in August 2011 with "Citizens not consulted about buying drones. Military to spend $1 billion on ARMED drones for Arctic patrols"

"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement; and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana Vol. I, Reason in Common Sense

"History, real solemn history, I cannot be interested in.... I read it a little as a duty; but it tells me nothing that does not either vex or weary me. The quarrels of popes and kings, with wars and pestilences in every page; the men all so good for nothing, and hardly any women at all - it is very tiresome." Jane Austen spoken by Catherine Morland in 'Northanger Abbey'

ADVERTISE YOUR REAL ESTATE FOR SALE TO THIS INFORMED AUDIENCEThousands of Unique Visitors and Tens of Thousands of Page Views Every Month (TRAFFIC CHART)

Try my Real Estate YIELD CALCULATOR to quickly analyze your current porfolio or compare a potential new purchase against a 10 year government bond or determine the ideal mortgage size to get the best return on your investment.